Simpler Navigation for Servers and Operating Systems - Please Update Your Bookmarks
Completed: a much simpler Servers and Operating Systems section of the Community. We combined many of the older boards, so you won't have to click through so many levels to get at the information you need. Check the consolidated boards here as many sub-forums are now single boards.
If you have bookmarked forums or discussion boards in Servers and Operating Systems, we suggest you check and update them as needed.
System Administration
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

lsof core dumps for one specific user

Dave Chamberlin
Trusted Contributor

lsof core dumps for one specific user

Greetings,

 

Running hpux 11.11 64 bit, lsof version is 4.77. I had a problem with user clr with too many open files - used "lsof -u clr" and it did show piles of open files - though these were not specific files  - just the directory. Stopped the problem processes and restarted. Now doing "lsof -u clr" causes coredump though "lsof -u oracle10" - or any other user does not. If I run lsof without flags and grep for the directory involved - or clr - the list comes back. Any ideas what this means?

thanks

4 REPLIES
Highlighted
Patrick Wallek
Honored Contributor

Re: lsof core dumps for one specific user

Is there anything useful in the core file that is generated?

 

What does "file core" show?

Dave Chamberlin
Trusted Contributor

Re: lsof core dumps for one specific user

file core just shows - core file from lsof - received SIGSEGV. The command itself shows memory fault - though as I mentioned it works for other users on the system, and works without parameters....

Dennis Handly
Acclaimed Contributor

Re: lsof core dumps for one specific user

>Any ideas what this means?

 

Too many files opened for that user?

Using gdb to get a stacktrace from the corefile may be helpful.

Dave Chamberlin
Trusted Contributor

Re: lsof core dumps for one specific user

I do have a workaround - just wondered why the issue. That user initially DID reach its file limit, but lsof worked when that condition was there.